STEM genius here...

STEM genius here. I challenge all philosofags to present me at least one philosophical argument that is actually meaningful and non-trivial.
Whenever I read philosophy I get the feeling I'm just too high IQ for this. Either it's just trivial thoughts I already had as a child or it's word salad that loses its meaning when boiled down to the actual content.

Attached: 1653943762717.jpg (820x983, 144.5K)

Why are you so hellbent on swallowing cum OP?
Surely you should have been satiated by now

>least one philosophical argument that
You need philosophy as the basis for everything. Even STEM has at its foundation a philosophical framework to explain what truth and reality you actually want to research.

Just try answering without philosophical arguments:
>whats the purpose of your life?
>why is anything real?
>what is good and what is evil?

>t. STEMfag.

I had this exact problem when my friend was trying to explain the problem of consciousness to me. Sounds like a bunch of misfits variously trying to invent a secular religion and restating the definition of psychology.

>sounds like a bunch of midwits
Fucking autocorrect, though both variants work.

Philosophy isn't so much about having new thoughts as it is just saying what other people are already thinking but louder and more concisely. In that sense the only real difference between a regular person and a philosopher is their ability to articulate their thoughts. This certainly isn't an attempt at a hot take, as I am sure that you and countless people across history have thought this before too.

Philosophy of science is trivial. The scientific method is trivially know to literally anyone who is interested in science. There is no intellectual merit in describing it yet another time.

>whats the purpose of your life?
>why is anything real?
>what is good and what is evil?
To my knowledge no philosopher has been able to answer these questions yet, not even partially. Furthermore, no philosopher has been able get to provide a universally accepted interpretation of these questions, so we cannot even agree on what would constitute an answer to them. Looks pretty bad for philosophy.

Problem of consciousness is yet another good example. Descartes raised it (though any non-NPC comes to ask himself the same question during their childhood) and no philosopher has found a solution yet. No progress made in more than 300 years.

I figured so. But kinda disappointing. One might hope that there are thinkers with an IQ high enough to produce new and original insights.

breasts or behinds - which is superior? laying aside the coins and notes maxim.

>The scientific method is trivially know to literally anyone who is interested in science. There is no intellectual merit in describing it yet another time.

True. Yet you cant work without it.

>Looks pretty bad for philosophy.
Thats the same as saying not having found a universal field theory makes physics look bad. You will never have a definite answer to everything and as in science, there are better and worse theories and possible solutions in philosophy. If you weren't some undergrad cuck, you'd know that.

The philosophy of science is not trivial. If it were trivial you could describe it right now (go ahead). It's very obvious what science is supposed to mean in an intuitive sense, but that doesn't make it easy to define or communicate

>Thats the same as saying not having found a universal field theory makes physics look bad. You will never have a definite answer to everything
But you posted those questions specifically to underline the importance/usefulness of philosophy. You'll have to admit now they were a bad choice because they underline where philosophy fails.

Dude, just searching "scientific method" on any search engine of your choice yields a lot of similar flow chart pictures you should have seen in school already. I'm not your personal search engine. Do it yourself. It is that trivial.

>But you posted those questions specifically to underline the importance/usefulness of philosophy.

Yes, how are you gonna answer them without philosophy?

>You'll have to admit now they were a bad choice because they underline where philosophy fails.

They show that philosophy succeeds where other parts of the sciences fail. Whether or not you want to, you need philisophy. And there was progress in philosophy. Modern phenomenology and language theory is far better at approximating an explanation of truth than enlightenment empiricism.

So you just shifted your argument from "philosophy is trivial, this shit is too easy" to "philosophy is too hard, nobody can answer those questions". It seems to me that the problem isn't in the existence of philosophy, but rather in the fact that not enough people are philosophising.
On another note, me being a mathematics student, it becomes painfully obvious that all modern mathematical rigor (and by extension, all scientific rigor) stems from philosophy. For example, read the phenomenology of spirit by Hegel, and therein you will find a passage where the man vouches for the introduction of formalism in mathematics, which was built on very shaky grounds at the time. Lo and behold, in the years following the issuing of the book, a rising demand for rigorous formalisation arose in mathematics. To be a man of science while denying the merits of philosophy is not to be a man of science at all.

In the past there were not as many people who made a career of philosophy. Those who were educated or literate enough were few and their ideas shined more brightly for it. These days there are mountains of amateur philosophers who struggle to be heard over one another. Maybe some of them have new and original ideas but we will never know. There are simply too many of them for each to be heard.

>Everything in philosophy can be trivially understood therefore it's useless
>>Please define the scientific method for me
>bro jsut google it bro

Attached: studio-shot-of-angry-teacher-twisting-the-students-ear-and-pointing-E1HRAG.jpg (1300x956, 99.09K)

>Yes, how are you gonna answer them without philosophy?
How are you gonna answer them with philosophy? That's the question. I asked for non-trivial philosophical insights and you just present a short list of problems on which no insights exist. Are you illiterate?

>They show that philosophy succeeds where other parts of the sciences fail.
Failing to answer a question is "success" now? What kind of moronic cope is this?

>list of problems on which no insights exist

Have you actually read any philosophy? There is a large span between "no insights" and "incomplete insights". And I just named an example of those, sonstop coping.

Like you said with scientific theory, once something becomes solved it becomes trivial. As for STEM, let me guess, CS or engineering?

Mathematicians are often high IQ, so trivially many of them are also good at philosophy, which is easier and less rigorous than math. In the past (Descartes, Fichte, Russell etc) those fields were inseparable, but when philosophy became a field on its own, it turned into a total cesspool of retards who don't even understand basic logic anymore.

Stoicism is definitely meaningful and non-trivial.
>inb4 but bro anyone knows that you shouldn't let things get to you
Then why does 99% of the population do just that? It's one thing to know the solution, and it's another to actually put in the work and go through with it. I think everyone could benefit from reading stoic pieces of literature.
Also, what philosophers have you read? And I don't mean what articles or previews have you read, what books have you read in their entirety to gain an actual opinion on it.

>hurr durr I don't understand the scientific method
You should become vaccine advisor for the government. Sounds like you're perfectly qualified.